Author: johnredwood

As a freedom lover, and as an MP, I support free speech.
As a moderator of this site and as a legislator, I appreciate there do have to be legal limits to free speech. Today I invite you to explore what limits should be placed on this crucial right. I invite you to do so in ways I can easily publish.
There have been many fine defences of free speech in the media over the last two days. I also note that the BBC and the main newspapers decided against reproducing the cartoons which were cited in connection with the mass murder and outrage in Paris. I here will stick to their line.
We can all agree that the barbarism in Paris is inexcusable. Our thoughts are with the families of those who lost loved ones in the various murders.
To have a vibrant democracy all institutions, especially government and people in power, have to be exposed to public criticism and popular scrutiny. To have a vibrant democracy there also have to be open and agreed limits to how far people can go in exercising their right to free speech. Satire, biting comment and cartoons all have their role to play.
Most people also agree that individuals, even individuals in elected office, have the right to protection against harmful and false allegations. To have a strong but healthy debate people need to be able to criticise or ridicule individuals, but not to make false claims without the individual concerned having the right to demand an apology and damages for the extreme cases. I regularly delete comments for this site because they make claims – often about my political opponents – that are hurtful if untrue, are often lies, or are difficult to prove. Comparisons of people with views you do not like to Hitler for example are common but normally excessive or disproportionate.
Most people also agree that groups, churches and other institutions should have to accept criticism and satire along with the rest of us. However, we also do need law to keep this within acceptable bounds. On this site I tend to protect institutions as I myself do not wish to attack or libel them and do not have the time to be dragged into disputes if the institution hits back.
To take an extreme case, Germany before the wars allowed and encouraged harsh language against Jews, which gave way to causal violence and discrimination which led to a programme of mass murder from the state. The development of insult and false allegation at the beginning helped fan the rest. This bitter history is part of the reason we have a law against inciting hatred.
The difficult issue for any democracy is to know what is fair comment, what is permissible satire and banter, and what is unacceptable racist abuse or incitement to hatred. At a time when we come together rightly to support free speech, we need to remember the daily compromises and judgements that editors have to make. We all need to consider the impact our language will have on those hearing it before making a public statement. We all also need to condemn unequivocally those who regard mass murder as an acceptable way of life to make a higher religious or political point.

Additional comment

People will enjoy the irony, but I have deleted more responses than usual to this topic as I am busy and do not have the time to edit each of the long contributions that pose interesting issues.

The media and media quangos are finding it difficult to decide who should be part of this year’s leaders’ debates for the General Election.
The easiest version would be a debate between Labour and Conservative. This would pit the two main contenders for the job of Prime Minister against each other without the intervention of other leaders who are unlikely to be in a position to be PM.
Trying to find a set of criteria to provide an objective view of who should attend is easiest if you confine the debate to the two largest parties in Parliament, the two parties with the highest share of the polls for the GE, and to the current PM and Leader of the Opposition. Each of those criteria gives you the same two people as the answer. They are the two people most people want to hear, and most people think the main judgement in the end comes down to which of those two do you want as PM.
As soon as you broaden out the criteria you get into difficulties. Including Mr Clegg can be based on representing the party with the third highest number of MPs at present, who came a good third in the last GE. It would be a bit odd to leave out the Deputy PM many would say. However, the Lib Dems struggle to qualify if you consider current poll ratings, or performance in the recent European election.
If you include Mr Farage you can make a case on the performance of UKIP in the last European election, and on his current poll rating in third place in most polls. It is more difficult if you wish to make the number of MPs an important criterion, as there are several other parties with more than UKIP, leaving aside the two main parties.
The Greens say if UKIP attends then they must. They are prepared to go to law on this. They point out they did win a seat in the last GE when UKIP did not, and they are ahead of the Lib Dems in some polls. They are clearly a nationwide party with a distinctive point of view.
The Scottish nationalists could qualify if winning a recent election matters, as they won well in the last Scottish Parliament election. However, they can never form a government in the UK or be PM by winning a majority, as they only put up candidates in Scotland. They have a claim based on number of Westminster seats and current poll ratings indicating they are likely to win more than any other of the 2010 minor parties.
Once you allow the Scot Nats there are difficult issues with regional parties from Wales and Northern Ireland.
I understand the broadcasters difficulties. I think we do want a tv debate. The easiest to justify would be Labour versus Conservative. Once you wish to reproduce the rich diversity of a modern election it is difficult to know where to stop. If you are going to have one or two of the minor parties from 2010 there is a case for having them all, as they come from different angles and attack different parts of the main parties, so in the interests of fairness more is better.

This government has been keen to increase the numbers of apprenticeships on offer. Expanding these programmes gets more people into work, and gets more people into better paid opportunities. 2 million people have taken advantage of this so far this Parliament.
Employers interested in developing apprenticeship schemes should contact Stephen.lamb@oracle.com as the Thames Valley LEP executive responsible. It can be a good way for a company to train and grow its own workforce.

Many western democracies in the second half of the twentieth century had two main parties competing for power – a centre right party and a centre left party. This model is being blown apart by Euro membership and the austerity policies it has generated.

The most extreme outcome so far is in Greece, which has arguably the worst experience of Euro membership to date. There latest polls for the forthcoming General Election put Pasok, the old centre left party, on just 5.8% of the vote, with electors put off by its implementation of EU austerity when it was in government. The centre right party is in second place on just 29% of the vote, also damaged by its association with the iron discipline of the Euro. The relatively new left wing anti austerity party, Syriza, currently leads in the polls on 33%. So the two old parties that used to alternate as governments command just 35.2% of the vote.

In France a recent poll for the 2017 Presidential election showed Hollande’s socialist cause struggling on just 15% and the recent version of the Gaullists, Sarkozy’s team UMP, on 27%, both behind the National Front. So there the two main old parties (and successors) on this particular poll were on just 42%.

In Spain PP, the right of centre party is on 28.6% and PSOE, the left of centre party on 23.4%, before the onslaught of Podemos, the left wing anti austerity party on 23%.

In Italy, with no tradition of stable majority governments, the present left grouping is polling well at 37% whilst the right of centre alternative, Forza Italia, languishes on 14%. The 5 Star challenger movement is on 19%. The latest surge has come for the regional party , the Lega Nord, with 13% of the overall vote, concentrated in the north where they seek a largely independent Padania under a loose federal structure. In both Italy and Spain the richer parts want to split from their nations, or at least control more of their own money.

Even in Germany, where the Euro has worked well for the country and where recent economic performance has been much better, the CDU and SPD only marshall 65% of the vote between them and have ended up in grand coalition as neither can win outright or win in coalition with similar allies.

The interesting question is why do these traditional parties across the zone remain so keen on the whole project, when increasing numbers of their electors reject it or want it modified, and when electorally it is so damaging to these parties? It appears that the southern countries cling to the idea that Germany will pay more of the bills and they need to stay in and try and change it, whilst Germany makes clear she can only put up with it if the Euro is on German terms of no bail outs, no cross guarantees, and tight control of spending and deficits.

It is also interesting that none of the challenger parties so far have managed to win a majority, and none of the challenger parties outside Germany (save in France) want to get out of the Euro anyway. The Euro has helped make a mess of the old parties, but has so far not triggered its nemesis with strong anti Euro parties. The Greek election will be fascinating, to see if Syriza can win as a challenger, and then to see if they can stay in the Euro and deliver their promise of debt cancellations and less austerity.

The Coalition when it came to office had sensible aims to rebalance the UK economy. It wished to cut the state deficit, and create a better balance between the productive sectors paying the taxes, and the state sector spending them.  It wished within the private sector to increase manufacturing as a percentage of the whole.

Almost five years on the government has made progress in cutting the share of GDP spent  by the state, but has further to go to eliminate the deficit altogether. The private sector in the second half of the Parliament has grown much more quickly than public spending, adjusting the balance between the two in a welcome way. It has also seen a  manufacturing revival with some notable success stories,  but not sufficient to increase the proportion of manufacturing in the total.

Rebalancing the private sector is more difficult for a government to achieve than rebalancing the state sector versus the rest. The government has considerable control over the size of the state sector, so can vary that as it sees fit. It has little control over the sizes of the manufacturing and service sectors. When trying to shift the balance it should want to do it  by helping grow the manufacturing sector more rapidly, rather than by cutting the size of the service sector through adverse taxes and regulations.

As someone who has led manufacturing businesses in the past, with more than a decade of experience in senior positions at  industrial groups, and who believes in making things, I do not need convincing of the desirability of expanding industry here. Nor is it difficult to say what other measures would help. As I have often pointed out, the single biggest stimulus to more industry here would be more reliable cheap energy, as the USA is discovering. Better purchasing by government would also help, so that more state spending could be used to buy things we need that are made here, without infringing competition rules. France and Germany seem to find ways of buying more of their own goods.

The boundaries between service and industry are not well defined. If a large industrial business decides to contract out its cleaning, catering and other back office services, the national accounts are likely to report a decline in manufacturing activity and a rise in service activity, though nothing real has changed. If an engineering business decides to buy in engineering consultancy to design its next product or solve some of its technical problems, again the figures flatter services and reduce manufacturing.

Sometimes the UK discovers that some of its engineering talent is drawn to the city where they can command higher salaries. Some people think this wrong, but they are adding value and earning  their living. If those same engineers are better paid by working for an engineering consultancy, which in its turn can be hired by UK manufacturers, that may be a sensible model for advancement.

Labour hit a new low in its presentation of figures in its dossier on the NHS. It is common and acceptable for parties to highlight accurate figures that most serve their case, but not acceptable to get figures deliberately wrong. The Conservatives have already highlighted Labour’s  mistake over numbers of medical staff. The numbers have gone up since 2010, whereas Labour said they had gone down.

Worse still is Labour’s continuing abuse of the percentage of national income figures supplied in the Red Book for total state spending in 2020.  This is forecast at  35%, after five more years of modest cash increases in total state spending and the economy growing faster than the public sector.

In their health brief Labour argue that the Conservatives wish to cut state spending “to levels in countries where up to half their health service is privately funded. ” They cite Mexico and Korea as two such examples. They then argue that this proves the Conservatives must have plans to privatise parts of the NHS and by implication people will have to pay for their health care.

The figures are wrong. They later have a table showing that Mexico has state spending at 27% of GDP, not 35%, and Korea at 20.6%. It is clearly not the government or Conservative plan to get UK state spending down to Korean or Mexican levels, not even as a percentage of their respective economies, let alone in real terms, as the published figures show. The Conservatives plan a much larger state sector than Korea or Mexico. They also ignore the fact that the UK is a lot richer than these two c0untries, so 35% of our GDP is worth more than 35% of their GDP. UK GDP per head of nearly $40,000 is  50% above South Korea and 3.6 times Mexico’s. So even if these two countries were at 35% of state spending to GDP, they would be able to afford a lot less healthcare.

The whole lie that Conservatives want to take state spending back to 1930s levels is bizarre. The UK is a much richer country than it was in the 1930s, so 35% of our national income now will buy us a lot more state service than it bought us then.

I was interested to see that Labour’s press release said at the bottom “Designed and built by Bluestate Digital. Hosted by Tumblr, 35 E 21st Street, 10th Floor, New York City, 10010 USA”.  Such is Labour’s confidence in our country and contribution to our economic success.